THE FOUNDATION OF SELF-ESTEEM
TERMINOLOGY INADEQUACIES
Branden, who somewhat claims to have brought self-esteem to the public’s attention in the late 1950s, defines it as the estimate one individual passes on him/herself by way of a value judgment. Ayn Rand said it is reliance on one’s power to think. Sigelman refers to self-esteem as “your overall evaluation of your worth as a person, high or low, based on all the positive and negative self-perceptions that make up your self-concept.” Since these and other literature definitions do not seem to match, let us try to locate a “common ground” definition of self-esteem.
By returning to the 15th century when “esteem” came into the English language, we find that “esteem” was intertwined with everything involved in the evaluation {”to find the value of”) of some object, and later somebody. For purposes of selling and buying in the European marketplace, an object required a “fair” estimated monetary appraisal in order to approximate that object’s exact value. Certain objects necessitated a “high” evaluation based upon the fact that they had more worth than value. Back then, an example of a “high” evaluation was a royal heirloom. Its worth was greater than its value because it had been passed down from one generation to the next within that royal family. A more recent example is Hank Aaron’s 715th homerun ball, which broke the “unbreakable” record of Babe Ruth. This “specialness” of a relatively inexpensive baseball caused it to sell for millions of dollars. silagra uk
To make acceptable the “fair” and “high” appraisals of objects, Renaissance expert evaluators considered three things. First, was what they called “regard”—the recognition of the value and/or worth of the object. Second was “respect”—a word built around the idea of honor. At that time, honor signified a fixed price for the purpose of ranking the object on the proper rung of the ladder of importance. Third was an “appreciation” of the combined value and worth of the object as, for example, the enjoyment of its perfection and beauty. These same three factors were eventually applied to human beings.
To “regard” was to recognize that the person had achievements of value and/or worth; to “respect” was to rank that person on the ladder of importance, based on the person’s recognized achievements; and to “appreciate” was to pleasantly “feel” the effects of the ranked achievements—pleasantness that could range anywhere from mere approval to profound gratitude or thankfulness. The combination of regard, respect, and appreciation was called “esteem” and they became its three fundamental components. When a person assessed him/herself by these three factors—in qualities, in quantities, and in character related behaviors and work products—the result was one’s self-esteem. cheap antibiotics without prescription
Subsequently, the adjectives of “good,” “high,” and “low” were added to categorize how one viewed oneself. “High” self-esteem came to imply that one “means a great deal” to oneself (i.e. having self-confidence); “low” self-esteem, the self-consciousness which makes one feels like a “small” and inferior person who does not mean much to him/herself. There are currently no universally accepted definitions for “good,” “high,” or “low”; nor are there specifics about what they describe; nor where one ends and where its opposite begins. Does “high” equate to “good” and “realistic” or to a range of things above “low”? Even if we leave off the adjectives, are other terms needed for people who do not assess their qualities, quantities, experiences, behaviors, and work products properly? Since people seldom recognize nor appreciate all of their traits of worth and value, is this what makes up low self-esteem? Everyday conversations tell us that instead of being realistic, most people’s assessments of whatever worth and value they do recognize is either positively or negatively distorted or fantasized.
Obviously, self-esteem is not a term adequate to cover all combinations of how people view themselves. Neither is the “high/low” vertical line dimension used to describe self-esteem expansive enough to cover all of the numerous exceptional situations. One exception is “the baddest dudes on the streets”—those with no fear of dying; with no fear of any man; and with no hesitation to killing someone for “no reason. ” Do they have a high or low self-esteem? Or is it simply strong, complete, focused, forceful, and destructive? canada drugs online
If their well-developed mindset processes could be kept intact, but flipped over to the constructive side, would this be “lateral,” “horizontal,” or “diagonal” self-esteem? Although presently stuck with the self-esteem” hand” dealt us by our medical ancestors, we can still use its three foundational components of regard, respect, and appreciation. However, those three components must be looked at in ways different from how they are viewed in the literature.